AC kimi-cli-doc-helper
Answer Kimi Code CLI (kimi-cli) questions by querying and analyzing the official documentation at moonshotai.github.io/kimi-cli. TRIGGER CONDITIONS - Use this skill when: 1. User directly asks about Kimi Code CLI / kimi-cli (installation, configuration, usage, commands, troubleshooting) 2. User asks about terminal AI assistants for coding 3. About to recommend or explain Kimi CLI configuration changes 4. Answering questions where Kimi CLI is part of the solution MANDATORY: Always fetch relevant documentation from moonshotai.github.io/kimi-cli before: - Answering any Kimi CLI-specific question - Suggesting configuration changes - Providing technical details about Kimi CLI features
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellSKILL.md:70Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (the skill's own vendor host)curl -LsSf https://code.kimi.com/install.sh | bash
vendor-host
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 40 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 815 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 690: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.